Ierrellus wrote: I would argue that religions and ethics began when the brain evolved enough to allow consciousness of Self, as this this in place of ordinarily this and that consciousness. Evolution of life forms depends on the deterministic creative agendas of DNA. Cosequently, philosophies that deny the self or eschew evolutionary theories are not my cup of tea. The real debate between some scientists and some philosophers has to do with whether the creative agenda of DNA is purposeful or random and fortuitous. I opt for purpose.

In fact, religious narratives can be said to revolve entirely around this teleological sense of reality. After all, the whole point of broaching it is to focus the discussion on "the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes."

And if the only "purpose" resides in the "brute facticity" of matter evolving into mind evolving into consciousness evolving into "self" evolving into a manifestation of matter able to reflect on its own existence, then "what in the world" is the purpose of that?

And the more we probe this the more bewildering it seems to get.

Mindless matter evolving into mindful matter but no less matter inherently embedded in immutable laws that can only ever unfold into a future that was never going to be anything other than what it can only be.

But then minds create Gods. Gods said to create us. And these Gods create us to either behave or to not behave in accordance with His will. But then other minds point out that if God is omniscient, He knows all and if He knows all then human autonomy is itself subsumed in that.

And it is here that this particular mind -- this particular "I" -- created a thread in order to explore how all of this is related to the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave in order that our fate on the other side of the grave might be as we imagine it to be.

Ierrellus wrote: Some religious thinkers believe that the advent of the "I', the fall into mind, is the root of all evil because the "I' can easily forget its place in the we. Some, such as the writers Of ACIM, believe evil is the lie of dearth, the thought that there isn't really enough of necessities to go around thus perpetuating us vs them mentality. But the "I " is a lens of consciousness, an evidence of the personal. It is not the gateway to hell or to delusion.

Possibly. But until those religious thinkers are willing to explore a particular "I" embedded in a particular "we" embedded in a particular set of circumstances embedded in a particular historical and cultural context, what "on earth" will they be talking about?

So, sure, if anyone here bumps into religious thinkers who actually are willing to explore that part of it, by all means, send them here.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Religion is an extension of authority as the first gods were kings and queens. What is monotheism but one great king god declaring all others kings and queens to be false under polytheism or paganism.

It is utilized (religion) to keep everybody in line and under firm control just as it has always done.

Notice the first shamans back to primordial times in ancient caves were the first idle class that while offering no productive labor themselves save for absurd superstition all others of the tribe were sent out to hunt for food, gather resources, and risks their lives for survival so that they could survive while doing nothing at all on a daily basis acting as spiritual advisors. Religion promotes laziness as it does lazy thinking and also is a tool utilized to reinforce serving authority or privilege. The priests, shamans, prophets, or preachers themselves of every historical era living nothing but lives of privilege off the labor and sweat of others, swindling grifters all of them. This is one of the reasons I am an atheist and not religious.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West wrote:Religion is an extension of authority as the first gods were kings and queens. What is monotheism but one great king god declaring all others kings and queens to be false under polytheism or paganism.

It is utilized (religion) to keep everybody in line and under firm control just as it has always done.

Notice the first shamans back to primordial times in ancient caves were the first idle class that while offering no productive labor themselves save for absurd superstition all others of the tribe were sent out to hunt for food, gather resources, and risks their lives for survival so that they could survive while doing nothing at all on a daily basis acting as spiritual advisors. Religion promotes laziness as it does lazy thinking and also is a tool utilized to reinforce serving authority or privilege. The priests, shamans, prophets, or preachers themselves of every historical era living nothing but lives of privilege off the labor and sweat of others, swindling grifters all of them. This is one of the reasons I am an atheist and not religious.

"If I have more money in my purse than meets my immediate needs, consider me a thief."---John Wesley, a Christian. Not all religion is about privilegeSee Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" for a decent overview of the world's religions. It has nothing to do with the power of kings, priests or shamans. That religion promotes laziness is a bald-faced lie. Newton was religious and worked to give us calculus and a theory of gravity, among other things. In short, the above declaration does not even give sufficient argument for one being a decent atheist. It is full of half truths that could fit either atheistic or theistic beliefs.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Ierrellus wrote:Iamb, What is there to explore in a proposition that's a straight jacket?

My point here though is not "what is there to explore" but to note a particular context in which the exploration unfolds. As that relates to our moral narrative on this side of the grave, as that relates to our imagined fate on the other side of it, as that relates to the manner in which we have come to embody God and religion.

Here and now.

In other words, in what manner do you perceive a "straight jacket"? As opposed to a straitjacket? What particular proposition relating to what particular set of circumstances?

Otherwise how am I to ground your point above in anything other than a "world of words"? A frame of mind that clearly appeals to you but one in which I don't really have a clue regarding "what in the world" you mean.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I suppose what I was trying to express is whether or not determinism in the gene and the meme provides a straightjacket limiting anything one could say or do. Is there possible freedom of individual thought given one's physical and mental heritage? Do I have to buy the idea of afterlife rewards or punishments?

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Man’s inability or unwillingness to accept complete and total responsibility for himself causes him to believe in a savior outside himself. Being completely and totally responsible for himself is unacceptable to him because he wouldn’t be able to blame something or someone for his thoughts and actions. It is easier and more comforting to believe in a savior outside himself, regardless of what it is called.

This seems reasonable to me. Religion, when push comes to shove, revolves largely around attaining a frame of mind that allows you to accumulate just enough in the way of an emotional cushion to endure all the things that really are beyond your control. And then to assign blame -- the Devil, the infidels, your own sins -- regarding those things that you aren't quite sure about.

Likewise, he doesn’t realize the only one who can change or resolve the problems he created, is himself. Furthermore, his uniqueness prevents anyone from saving him, because he is the only one who has the solution to the problems he created. Denial of his responsibility perpetuates the illusion of an external savor.

Here though we find any number of particular contexts in which we are not able solve our problems. In other words, regardless of how much of an honest and sincere effort we put into making the attempt.

Is your latest post a reply to another thread or does it apply to this one also? Would being totally responsible for what one does or thinks somehow prevent justice from being deferred to some afterlife in many minds?

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Ierrellus wrote:I suppose what I was trying to express is whether or not determinism in the gene and the meme provides a straightjacket limiting anything one could say or do. Is there possible freedom of individual thought given one's physical and mental heritage? Do I have to buy the idea of afterlife rewards or punishments?

My point though is not what we have to "buy", but the extent to which that which we have already bought "in our heads" is something that we are able to demonstrate that all reasonable folks are obligated to "buy" in turn.

That, in other words, believing something is true is not the same thing as showing others why they should believe it too.

And what else is there [relating to God] that we have "for all practical purposes" in order to exchange conversations which either facilitate or obstruct our interactions with others?

And the bottom line is that we just don't know for sure if any of this is only as it ever could have been in a wholly determined world.

Here [just as with God] we take our leaps of faith.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

But: How on earth would I go about determining that? And how on earth would others go about demonstrating that?

After all, there are so many things here that I want to be wrong about.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Ierrellus wrote: Is your latest post a reply to another thread or does it apply to this one also?

Basically what I do on this thread is to bring points of view that I find on other threads here.

Why? Because the points that they raise may have little or nothing to do with the manner in which I construe God and religion.

I bring their assumptions here in order to comment on them given the assumptions that I make.

Ierrellus wrote: Would being totally responsible for what one does or thinks somehow prevent justice from being deferred to some afterlife in many minds.

Again, my narrative here revolves less around what others might imagine being "totally responsible" means as this pertains to "justice" before or after the grave, and more around how they go about connecting these dots in the course of actually living their lives -- lives that precipitate conflicts relating precisely to these relationships.

Only my aim is always to embody them existentially.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Eternity is here and now, not here after anything. Every doubt is a belief.A God experience can be shared by those whose qualia of the experience match reasonably. Living this life for rewards in an afterlife is self centered and not what the spiritual masters espouse. Ecological morality provides the only antidote for man's trashing of natural resources and constant wars.It is easy to demand proof of spiritual matters by those who do not try to experience God. Reason has its limitations in the head, not so in the spirit.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Ierrellus wrote:Eternity is here and now, not here after anything. Every doubt is a belief.A God experience can be shared by those whose qualia of the experience match reasonably. Living this life for rewards in an afterlife is self centered and not what the spiritual masters espouse. Ecological morality provides the only antidote for man's trashing of natural resources and constant wars.It is easy to demand proof of spiritual matters by those who do not try to experience God. Reason has its limitations in the head, not so in the spirit.

You post things like this because you believe things like this. And not for a moment do I doubt either the importance or the earnestness of this "spiritual" assessment to you.

But [from my frame of mind] it really has little or nothing to do with the intent, the focus of this thread.

In other words, to take words of this sort out into the world of human interactions and to assess their relevance when human behaviors actually do come into conflict. As this is pertinent to assessments that include God and religion.

Sure, you might make it all the way to the grave entirely avoiding that sort of exchange with others. And you will have succeeded then in sustaining the comfort and consolation that your beliefs afford you. Comfort and consolation I no longer have.

Yes, I really, really, really do get that part.

The part about believing that something is true. Being able to.

But that's not the part that interest me the most here.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I’m sorry you incorrectly attributed the quote to a charlatan. I’m also sorry the quote was taken out of context which reversed its meaning.

Ierrellus wrote:but more sorry to hear of your feelings for Chopra, Oprah, et.al. It smacks of the us vs them mentality that keeps the world in its current divided mess.

Division was my intention. I want to divide both the left’s new-age religion AND the right wings traditional/fundamentalism from true spirituality.

I want to divide those who perpetually argue over the finger pointing to the moon from those who are actually gazing at the moon.

The fingers pointing at the moon are belief systems, theories or dogmas of ANY kind – left or right, traditional or new age.

Regardless of who’s pointing, the pointing finger is not the Truth. Even if you point at the moon better than anyone else in history ever has, that is STILL not the Truth.

The aim of pointing, ironically, is to get people to look AWAY from the finger pointing and towards that which it is pointing to. To see the moon, you have to abandon your focus on the finger. The finger, of course, refers to ones’ beliefs, concepts, understandings hope and wishes.

My anger at fake spiritual teachers like Chopra is that they make their fortunes from deceiving people into thinking it’s about choosing the correct finger/concept/belief. In doing so, they prevent their disciples from ever seeing the moon themselves. I think I have a valid point for being angry or divisive.

Speaking of being divisive... few people have been more divisive than Siddhartha and Jesus. This is positive division - separating organised group-think (finger pointing) from personal realization (the moon).

Christ is perhaps the greatest divider in history. He was a true revolutionary and is said to have come with a sword – not to kill - but to separate and divide.

Jesus said: “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but sword (sometimes translated as division).” He said he came to divide one family member from another… “they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter…." and that “a man's enemies will be the members of his household”

Jesus also divided people by separating the disciples from 'luke-warm' followers who he said he would spew out of his mouth. He divided people by criticizing the Rabbis by calling them hypocrites and challenging their authority.

There's no political correctness in spirituality. There's just spiritual correctness and when you take it seriously, it's often, brutal. Chopra wont tell you about anything like this because he's selling sweetness and light. He's offering to make your dream cozier and more comfortable while the true masters are violently shaking you and hitting you with sticks to wake you up.

Ierrellus wrote:It also hints at the fundy justice system of rewards and punishments. i.e, those fat and rich and popular must be doing something wrong spiritually in order to get ahead of us plodding masses in the material world.

I don't know where the subject of money comes from? I didn't 'hint' at anything about money but I'll respond by asking you this:

Do you think Jesus' act of overturning the money-changers tables in the temple grounds also 'hints at the fundy justice system of rewards and punishment'?

What about when he said: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” or when he warned about storing up treasure on earth where moth and vermin destroy and thieves steal? What about when he said you cannot serve two masters... you cannot serve both God and mammon?

Do these also hint at a 'fundy' justice system?

For me, it’s not about money per se. It’s about attachment. Being attached to making money is an addiction. Chopra has amassed $80 million (writing books on deeply spiritual subjects that include diet, how to look younger and how to be successful ) and yet he still doesn’t have enough. His kids said he is an absentee father; they don't know him. He may as well have been addicted to drugs or in prison as far as his relationship with his kids goes. He didn't leave his family to serve God as Jesus' disciples did. He abandoned his family to serve his addiction to fame and mammon.

CS, I don't know enough about Chopra to be considered a fan. I do, however, appreciate such works as "The War of the Worldviews" for its presentation of both scientific and spiritual concepts. I have no problem with your religious views.Be that as it may, the problem at hand is Iamb's dismissal of ideas as " in the head" using ideas in his head.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Ierrellus wrote:...the problem at hand is Iamb's dismissal of ideas as " in the head" using ideas in his head.

It's a "problem" only to the extent you ignore the distinction I make between those things that you do believe "in your head" and those things that you either are or are not able to demonstrate to others are, in fact, reasonable to believe.

What is it reasonable to believe about your own spiritual narrative? Insofar as the discussion revolves around the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave and that which you anticipate your fate to be on the other side of it.

But you won't go there will you?

Or even risk an exchange with me that explores the reasons why.

And I've been there believe me. I know what is at stake in the way of comfort and consolation.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

It seems you are missing the point that rational people will espouse both your religious narrative and mine. I do not have to go anywhere to have reasonable people agree with my take on the matter. Anything either of us attempts to demonstrate to some other rational person comes from our separate subjective selves. Objectivity among the myriad personal viewpoints amounts to consensus of agreement. Subjectivity is the hard problem, not only for those who would attempt to define consciousness, but for whoever would attempt to describe any metaphysical concept.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Ierrellus wrote: It seems you are missing the point that rational people will espouse both your religious narrative and mine.

No, my point is that espousing [believing] a narrative is one thing, demonstrating how/why it is a frame of mind that all reasonable men and women are obligated to espouse [believe] another thing altogether.

For example, one can provide a narrative encompassing the history of Christianity. There are historical facts about it that one is more or less able to demonstrate as true. All reasonable men and women would seem obligated to believe this or that about it. Why? Because there are events that can be more or less established.

Instead, I shift the discussion [on this thread] to examining the narratives of those who do accept the Christian faith. And I ask them to embody that belief in/by/through connecting the dots between their behaviors on this side of the grave and their perceived fate on the other side. What here can be established such that reasonable men and women are obligated to concur?

Ierrellus wrote: I do not have to go anywhere to have reasonable people agree with my take on the matter. Anything either of us attempts to demonstrate to some other rational person comes from our separate subjective selves.

Yes, but, again, look what is at stake here!!!

Your take [here and now] on God and religion has to eventually come to grips with the reality of death. Something will happen to us after we die. And the overwhelming preponderance of religious folks insist that all revolves around one or another rendition of Judgment Day.

You don't believe that. But you offer absolutely no substantive reasons why others ought not to believe that too.

You merely point out that you have managed to "think" your way into believing this. And, in having done so, you are able to sustain a measure of psychological comfort and consolation.

Basically you are arguing that whatever your particular "subjective self" has manged to come up with is all that matters. If it "works" to bring you some measure of equanimity, you're clearly better off.

And you won't get any argument about that from me.

Ierrellus wrote: Objectivity among the myriad personal viewpoints amounts to consensus of agreement. Subjectivity is the hard problem, not only for those who would attempt to define consciousness, but for whoever would attempt to describe any metaphysical concept.

All I can do is to note this:

That until you are willing to intertwine a "general description" argument of this sort into an examination of actual human behaviors "out in the world" -- a world where there are countless conflicting religious and secular narratives -- you are content to just accept that what you believe "in your head" need be as far as you go.

That works for you. For all practical purposes.

Okay, but in a philosophy venue?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

If it's a question of whether the soul will survive death, that has nothing to do with the permanence or fluctuation of the soul. Think of it like a student taking a course. From the beginning of the semester to the end, the student is undergoing constant change--cells are being replaced, personality changes, new memories are formed, more skills and knowledge are acquired--but then what does the professor say after the final exam: "Sorry, kid, can't let you pass. You're not the same person who registered for the course." Of course not! You think God would reject you in the afterlife because you technically go through change in this life?

On this thread however the focus would be more on closing the gap between what you believe about the soul and that which you are actually able to demonstrate to others is something that they ought to believe about it as well.

As for Judgment Day, here the aim is to discuss the changes in your life experientially. As more or less existential contraptions. As they prompt you to behave one way rather than another.

And then the extent to which the behaviors that you do choose are intertwined in a soul that either does attain immortality and salvation or does not.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I see nothing in your OP that could compel belief from a majority of rational individuals. I see instead self-centered, fear-based notions that may be considered religious, but not spiritual.So, this is a philosophy forum. It is listed as religion and spirituality, both of which entail subjective responses. Objectivity in this arena best amounts to pragmatic considerations of the effects ones personal beliefs will have for the prospect of the amelioration of the human condition.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Ierrellus wrote: I see nothing in your OP that could compel belief from a majority of rational individuals. I see instead self-centered, fear-based notions that may be considered religious, but not spiritual.

The OP revolved around an exchange I was having with zinnat. He had his own rendition of God. And he was intent on showing me that a belief in God was within the reach of the philosopher.

And, after he was able to establish that, then we would explore the parts that most interested me.

But: He has his rendition of this, I have mine.

And my aim is always to explore the limitations of rational thought in examining these interactions. In other words, with respect to either religion or morality, I always focus an exchange on the extent to which we may well be afforded only leaps of faith.

But one thing that seems clearly reasonable to me is that religious narratives revolve first and foremost around the manner in which any particular one of us connects the dots in our head between the behaviors that we choose here and now, a particular belief in God and religion and how the two together precipitate a frame of mind regarding our imagined fate "beyond the grave".

And then [this being a philosophy venue] the extent to which we are able to translate that which we believe into an argument [with evidence] that will allow others to share what we believe.

As opposed to, say, a discussion of these things in church or around the campfire or in a bar or at the family dinner table.

To which you note:

Ierrellus wrote: So, this is a philosophy forum. It is listed as religion and spirituality, both of which entail subjective responses. Objectivity in this arena best amounts to pragmatic considerations of the effects ones personal beliefs will have for the prospect of the amelioration of the human condition.

Another "general description" prescription. And yet the bottom line remains the same: that there are any number of conflicting and contradictory "personal beliefs" rooted in any number of conflicting and contradictory moral/political narratives aimed at ameliorating the human condition...

...but only if everyone goes about doing this in the right way.

Your way. Or his way or her way or our way or their way.

And with or without God.

But that's where I come in. My aim is to explore these conflicting value judgments from the perspective of dasein.

Again, with or without God.

It's just that, with you, things could not possibly be rosier. Why? Because no matter what we do on this side of the grave God will embrace us on the other side of it.

And this is true because you believe that this is true.

And that comforts and consoles you.

End of story. Your story.

And that's always the bottom line.

But only here and only now.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

What we can discuss intersubjectively, with the prospect of mutual understanding, are synonymous qualia at the roots of shared, personal experience. My concepts of God may not be to your liking. Are anyone's? While claiming to search for rational concepts discussing god, you seem to align with the irrational notions of an omnipotent deity who loses human souls to a powerful adversary. Of course a philosopher can have a belief in God. Spinoza comes to mind.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

If one cannot see human evolution as personal and purposeful. a god that is compassionate and empathetic would appear as a "rosy" myth. Centuries of saints would be liars. There would be no cause for ecological morality beyond admitting to the threat of possible human extinction.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.